Syndicate

Meta

Please note that “North American Secessionist Congress” as name for pending corporate entity, has been officially reserved with the Ohio Secretary of State. In part, the certificate states:

“It is hereby certified that the Secretary of State of Ohio has custody of the business records for NORTH AMERICAN SECESSIONIST CONGRESS and, that said business records show the filing and recording of: NAME RESERVATION.”

NASC Steering Committee member, Harold Thomas, did the leg work on this one and hats are off to him. Yesterday, Jenna Orkin over at the FTW Blog gave us a very good plug; international hits to the NASC Forum were up considerably.

For those who are not yet familiar with the proposed NASC, one of several aims is to gather already-committed secessionists, Peak Oil advocates, States’ Rights advocates and disenchanted Greens under a common secessionist roof. The common denominator for these three demographics, to one degree or another, is a shared acknowledgement and comprehension of secession. Furthermore, the NAmerican secessionist movement will finally have elected representation via an Executive that functions within the incorporated and legal parameters of a Constitution and Bylaws as determined and ratified by the membership.

Mr. Naylor reiterates the 12 percent support for secession in Vermont translating into 60,000 registered voters. There is a large chasm to leap between the endorsement of an idea and its support. Sam Young, the acknowledged secessionist gubernatorial candidate in Vermont during the ’08 elections drew 0.8 percent (2,466 votes).

There is a glaring disconnect here. Questions to be asked are: Why does the disconnect exist? How can it be resolved?

Part of the problem may lie in the fact that, as of yet, there is no real secessionist political platform and policies that can be offered to the voting public. Waiting for Republicrats to seize the secessionist initiative is self-defeating. As such, the creation of a secessionist party, as proposed by the Green Mountain Brigade in Vermont, may prove the way to go. The SVR is on record as opposing such a development. Such a party would translate into a concrete alternative for the electorate to entertain. Via such a political vehicle, the 12 percent, if it actually exists, may step out from the shadows knowing that its support would actually translate into true State legislative representation.

If the 12 percent support really does exist then the paper revolutionaries in Vermont owe it to those citizens to organize politically around their support, as opposed to leaving them dangling in the wind. With a first-across-the-line voting system, parliamentary representation, and multiple parties (at the State level) to not crunch the numbers and to not enter the electoral fray in a wisely-targeted electoral district with a distinctive secessionist party brings Tallyrand to mind: “It is worse than a crime, it is a mistake.” The same electoral dynamics apply for a couple of Southern states and especially for Texas. For the latter, we have had that discussion in this space before.

This particular revolution will not be a re-enactment of a sixties love-in. Each geographical jurisdiction carries the responsibility to safeguard and promote its own and unique autonomy. Vermont’s business is Vermont’s business. However, until such time as the secessionist struggle goes political then it is all just make-believe. As we have known all along, some will get it right, some will get it wrong, and some won’t get it at all.

As for the interview itself, the same applies here as to last week’s WSJ article, Divided We Stand. NAmerican secessionists will have to tweak their media savvy. It always helps to know who is playing whom…and to whose advantage.

It would seem that the secessionist community has gone ga-ga over the WSJ exposure, Divided We Stand, by Paul Starobin. In predictable, politically short-sighted fashion, little concern has been shown to what might lie beneath the surface, i.e. things are never as they seem.

My original take on the article was: Why this? Why now? And why via the WSJ? My most concrete thought is directly related to Post-Peak Oil collapse, i.e. with a financially bankrupt federal state, the public is being prepped on the federal state having to bail out, ergo my entire notion of secession-by-default. This particular take on secession makes me a bit of a freak even within the secessionist community. With all due respect to my States’ Rights colleagues, the clamp-down on individual freedoms is a symptom of a greater cause. The cause, the social driver of socio-political devolution is the entry onto the depletion slope of Post-Peak Oil and the shattering of social institutions that will accompany this historical collapse and transition.

It is the first formal step by our major trading partners to replace the dollar as the world’s reserve currency. If they succeed, the dollar will dramatically plummet in value, the cost of imports, including oil, will skyrocket, interest rates will climb and jobs will hemorrhage at a rate that will make the last few months look like boom times. State and federal services will be reduced or shut down for lack of funds. The United States will begin to resemble the Weimar Republic or Zimbabwe. Obama, endowed by many with the qualities of a savior, will suddenly look pitiful, inept and weak. And the rage that has kindled a handful of shootings and hate crimes in the past few weeks will engulf vast segments of a disenfranchised and bewildered working and middle class. The people of this class will demand vengeance, radical change, order and moral renewal, which an array of proto-fascists, from the Christian right to the goons who disseminate hate talk on Fox News, will assure the country they will impose.

It would seem that it was no accident that the WSJ article appeared when it did and where it did. As a complimentary article to the Hedges article, see:

Over the course of the coming years secessionists will need to be wary as to who is setting the agenda and to who is establishing the filters through which information is sifted. We cannot and must not allow the secessionist movement to be framed by our adversaries. To do so would merely render us as useful idiots, obedient lap dogs unwittingly serving a greater, globalist agenda. One need simply look at the example of how the Green movement has been co-opted for such purpose.

That secessionist organizations will be infiltrated by COINTELPRO’s should come as no surprise. If the movement is legitimate, this is par for the course. To borrow from previous historical examples, the challenge will be to flush out the infiltrators and turn them! We will need to be wary of who is playing whom and to whose advantage. Who is the dog, who is the tail, and who is wagging whom?

Only a legitimate, continental secessionist organization with an Executive elected by the constiuency that it purports to represent can, rightly or wrongly, assume such responsibilities.

One of the most profound statements to come out of the 2007 Second North American Secessionist Convention held in Chattanooga, as reported by Bill Poovey, was that the movement represented the unlikely partnering of “the far left and far right of American politics coming together.” The statement went largely unnoticed; however, it is the philosophical core of the proposed North American Secessionist Congress.

Of the many political illusions that are currently being shattered by the decline of industrial civilization (the collapse of the American Empire is a sub-collapse), two of the most important are the shattering of the two-party system and the shattering of the political notions of “left” and “right.” The symbolic emperor literally wears no clothes!

The political notions of “left” and “right” are in process of being denuded; they still hold significant sway in the public consciousness. Until such time as the two hemispheres converge and, in the process shatter pre-existing molds, the dynamic of far left and far right coming together retains its hold in the public psyche.

It has been proposed that the three political demographics encompassing the secessionist convergence triad are the States’ Rights movement, the Peak Oil movement, and disenchanted Greens. Each demographic recognizes, to one extent or another, the common denominator of secession.

The States’ Rights movement flirts with secession, up to and including the insertion of secession trigger clauses in resolutions. The Peak Oil movement acknowledges institutional collapse and devolution, while still weakly maintaining that such institutional collapse, i.e. secession, does not apply to the social institution of the large industrial nation state. Disenchanted Greens acknowledge the primacy of bioregional, secessionist politics in the face of bastardized federal parties. Within each demographic there reside minority cadres who will perceive the secessionist common denominator and political logic as put forward by the proposed North American Secessionist Congress.

So there we have the unlikely partnering of “the far left and far right of American politics coming together.” The historical condition always dictates what can and cannot be done. The trick is to perceive the condition for what it is, without resorting to subjective and jingoistic security blankets, and act accordingly.

It has been decided to bump the inaugural meeting of the North American Secessionist Congress from October, 2009 to October, 2010. As Steering Committee member Harold Thomas of The Ohio Republic put it, “Secessionism isn’t ready, we’re not ready, and the world isn’t ready.”

Towards this end, a forum/network has been started for the North American Secessionist Congress. Please consider becoming a member of the forum so that we can entertain as much input as possible to pull this thing off in 2010.

Retreat is never surrender. It is merely a tactical necessity at times. The trudge continues.

Over the short course of one year the notion of NAmerican secession has snow-balled into the public’s political consciousness. The course and media trajectories are roughly the following: last summer’s Zogby Poll that revealed support for the right (as opposed to support for secession) of states to secede to be 20%; the comic relief, yet valuable media dividends of Sarah Palin’s secessionist ties; the pronouncements of America’s geographical decline by the Russian analyst, Igor Panarin; in general, the flourishing of the States’ Rights movement complimented by, in particular, the secessionist trigger written into New Hampshire’s HCR 0006; Texas Gov. Rick Perry’s flirtation with secession, and; corporate media coverage ranging from the Los Angeles Times to the Wall Street Journal.

The most recent established institution to endorse the notion of secession is the Ludwig von Mises Institute with the publication of Secession Is In Our Future. This article offers a concise overview of the legality of secession ranging from the inalienable right of secession, to international law of secession, to U.S. law of secession. It is a good read for all those federalists whose immediate, knee-jerk response to secession is that it is illegal.

Unfortunately, the von Mises article displays two shortcomings that are common to most U.S.A.-centric analyses of secession.

The first of these shortcomings is the focus on individual state secession as opposed to more regional perspectives and perceptions. Granted, secession can only proceed via the legislative authority of one state at a time. However, this does not preclude the incorporation of regional alliances and federations towards the establishment of new, autonomous nations upon the geographical dimensions of North America. As a guide to how these regional breakdowns may evolve, please see How would the U.S.A. fragment? by Phil Gyford.

The second shortcoming is a major philosophical and political blind spot. It is the analysis of secession as a socio-political driver as opposed to secession being a consequence and symptom of greater, underlying dynamics and phenomena. It cannot be stated enough that secession will be a consequence of ecological and financial collapse, in particular, the descent onto a Post-Peak Oil reality.

As the physical infrastructure collapses, so too will the institutional infrastructure. The dynamic of secession is not reversed, as far too many secessionists mistakenly believe. Yes, it will be imperative to retain the social principles of “freedom and liberty” (i.e. States’ Rights movement), but in a world of increasing scarcities and hardships this will prove to be a daunting challenge, yet one that must be pursued. It is quite possible that a social contract encompassing social responsibilities will influence and mold our current understanding of what is meant by “freedom and liberty.”

By now most of the fallout released by Texas Gov. Rick Perry at last week’s Austin Tea Party has settled. The reference is, of course, related to Gov. Perry’s going beyond the endorsement of Texas States’ Rights onto the slippery, uncharted and dangerous political slope of secession.

The liberal media quickly trotted out its attack poodles in the form of MSNBC’s Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow. Aside from the now lame and questionable interpretations of the American Civil War and Lincoln’s merits as a freedom fighter, one has to assume that secession would be bad for General Electric’s bottom line as an arms merchant. On the conservative side, much finger pointing went in the direction of Fox News and Glenn Beck’s 9/12 Project for the ultra-jingoistic primping of the Tea Bag protests. Both “left” and “right” media missed the mark, as was pointed out by Alex Jones. However, not even the writers at Inforwars picked up on the realpolitik motives behind Gov. Perry’s sudden attachment to the secession of Texas from the Union.

Gov. Perry is locked in a bitter fight for the Republican Primary gubernatorial nomination with Texas Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison in March, 2010. Reports have it that the two do not particularly like each other and that the gloves are already coming off for what will likely be nasty campaigns. Furthermore, as reported by Richard Murray (also here), Sen. Hutchison currently holds about a 10 point spread. Gov. Perry has just less than a year to play catch up and then some. The challenge for the incumbent becomes from where and how to make up the difference. It is at this point that Gov. Perry’s newly-found embracement of secession comes into play.

A name that has not yet been mentioned in any of the blog action or by the corporate media around Gov. Perry’s secessionist pronouncements is that of Larry Kilgore. Mr. Kilgore is a dedicated Texas secessionist who has six attempts at public office under his belt. In 2006, he gained 8 percent of the vote in the GOP Primary for Governor. His most recent electoral effort was the 2008 primary challenge for the Republican Senate nomination, during which he received 225,897 votes! Lastly, Mr. Kilgore has announced his intent to let his name stand for the 2010 Republican gubernatorial primary. The sheen on Gov. Perry’s newly-discovered secessionist empathy takes on a whole new tone.

Sen. Hutchison’s demographic backing comes from the more moderate, professional and urban wing of Texas Republicans. Gov. Perry’s support, on the other hand, is based on hard-right conservatives who are strongly pro-life, opposed to gay rights, hostile to teaching evolution in the public schools, and tough on immigration. It is the very demographic that delivered for Mr. Kilgore, with his platform of Biblical Law for an independent Texas, 225,897 votes during the 2008 Republican Senate primary.

One now gains an altogether different (and more clear?) picture of Gov. Perry’s secessionist motives: he’s out to grab Mr. Kilgore’s support to fend off the challenge from Sen. Hutchison. Unless Mr. Kilgore finds a way to defend both his position and support, with a secessionist slant, then he very well faces insurmountable odds to fend off an incumbent Governor from staging a well-financed and aggressive raid into his electoral base.

Richard Murray (link above) throws further light on the numbers up for grabs for both Gov. Perry and Mr. Kilgore:

for the last four Republican gunernatorial primaries, the average turn-out has been 691,000 (2006 turn-out was 665,616)

for the last four Republican gunernatorial general elections, the average primary vote was 30.4% of the general election turn-out (2006 general election turn-out was 1,716,792)

odds are that of the 13 million registered voters in Texas who can vote in the Republican Primary next year, less than a million will actually cast ballots

the very selective GOP primary voters from 1994 – 2006 have been disproportionately hard-right conservatives

And there you have it. There is a strong probability of voter cross-over between Republican Senate and Gubernatorial primary turn-outs, i.e. hard-right conservatives. As such, if one stacks up Mr. Kilgore’s 2008 Senate primary support of 225,897 votes against the 2006 Gubernatorial primary turn-out of 665,616 we see how crucial and decisive Mr. Kilgore’s past support stands to be in 2010.

Sen. Hutchison needs a high turn-out primary that attracts moderate urban voters. Gov. Perry needs a low turn-out in March 2010 where the born-again Christian vote wields power. Mr. Kilgore needs to clarify who the real secessionist candidate is to prevent his support from draining over to Gov. Perry.

For Sen. Hutchison, going after Mr. Kilgore’s grass-roots, Republican support is not an option. For Gov. Perry, tapping into some, most or all of Mr. Kilgore’s support could be the difference between political life and death. If the Governor has his eyes on the Presidency in 2012, then he will first have to overcome the 2010 hurdle. The stakes here are serious and they are huge. Mr. Kilgore stands to be a giant slayer in more ways than one and in ways that are not yet even visible on most political radar.

(Note: In a follow-up post I shall deal with Gov. Rick Perry and Secessionist Realpolitik II. This was touched on by the Infowars reporton Gov. Perry’s questionable secessionist beliefs, but was not followed to conclusion, i.e. Gov. Perry’s ties, as a Bilderberger, to a globalist New World Order and the related dismantling of nation-states as part of the globalist agenda.)